Note to Guardian leader writers:
If exposing public goods to market forces changes the way that people feel about them, the implications could be profound.
If you’re going to start talking about economics and public goods, would be worth finding out what a public good is first.
When bureaucracies price things which should not be priced – endangered species, future generations or even individual lives – they start trading them off against other objectives, instead of appreciating their absolute obligations.
What do you mean “individual lives” should not be priced? Should not be traded off against other objectives? What in buggery do you think NICE does? Slaps a value on one quality adjusted life year and refuses to pay for a treatment that costs more than that.
These things have to be valued, otherwise we have no idea of how much of our resources should be spent on them.
5 responses so far ↓
1 Ian B // Jul 4, 2009 at 8:28 am
I have this pleasant recurring daydream. It involves the quangocrats of NICE, and tumbrels.
2 john b // Jul 4, 2009 at 10:57 am
Yes, it’d be far better if we just gave all drugs to everyone irrespective of their benefit/cost ratio. Also, unlimited lollipops and unicorns for every child.
3 AntiCitizenOne // Jul 4, 2009 at 12:54 pm
John B is a rainbow denialist!
Rainbows every day for all.
4 The Great Simpleton // Jul 4, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Sod the rainbow, I’ll settle for unlimited pots of gold at the end of it.
5 AntiCitizenOne // Jul 4, 2009 at 3:26 pm
Admit it, you want to destroy non-fiat currencies!
Leave a Comment